JUDGMENT 1. The Respondent was appointed as State Vigilance Commissioner by a Notification issued by the Government of Nagaland on 21.6.2006. The appointment was for a period 5 (five) years or till he attains the age of years whichever is earlier with effect from the date he assumes charge of the office. 2. The controversy raised is that the pay granted to the Respondent in his capacity as a State Vigilance Commissioner should be equivalent to that of the State Chief Secretary. It is submitted that the former State Vigilance Commissioners were paid the same scale as the State Chief Secretary. 3. The Notification dated 21.6.2006 appointing the Respondent refers to his pay as follows: Shri Metongmeren Ao will be given salary equivalent to the last pay drawn by him as an IAS officer in the super time scale, minus the pension being drawn by him. 4. It appears that the Respondent later came to know that the pay scale of the earlier State Vigilance Commissioners had been the same as the State Chief Secretary, and therefore, he made a representation for enhancement of his pay. 5. On the basis of his representation, a Committee was constituted on 19.9.2007 consisting of the Chief Secretary as Chairman, Principal Secretary, P&AR as Member Secretary, Principal Secretary, Finance as Member and Commissioner & Secretary, Law and Justice as Member. 6. On the basis of the recommendation given by the Committee, a Notification was issued on 12.3.2008, wherein the pay of the Respondent was modified as follows: Shri Metongmeren Ao, IAS (Rtd) shall be given a salary in the scale of pay of Rs. 22,400-525-24,500/-p.m. plus all other allowances as admissible to the employees of the Nagaland Government, or the last pay drawn by him as IAS officer, whichever is more favourable to him, minus the pension being drawn by him. 7. It appears that the scale of pay of Rs. 22,400-525-24,500/- p.m. was more favourable than the earlier pay given to the Respondent that is the pay last drawn by him minus the pension. Accordingly, on the basis of more favourable pay scale another Notification dated 12.3.2008 was issued fixing the scale of pay of the Respondent at Rs. 22,400-525-24,500/- p.m. 8. Not satisfied with the Notification dated 12.3.2008, the Respondent preferred a Writ petition that he should be granted the scale of pay as admissible to the Chief Secretary of the State. Accordingly, on the basis of more favourable pay scale another Notification dated 12.3.2008 was issued fixing the scale of pay of the Respondent at Rs. 22,400-525-24,500/- p.m. 8. Not satisfied with the Notification dated 12.3.2008, the Respondent preferred a Writ petition that he should be granted the scale of pay as admissible to the Chief Secretary of the State. 9. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Respondent completed the age of 65 years, and therefore, his appointment as State Vigilance Commissioner came to an end. Thereafter the Respondent made a request to extend his services as the State Vigilance Commissioner by 1 (one) year. This request was granted as a result of which the Respondent continued beyond the age of 65 years. 10. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. It may be mentioned in the first instance that when the Notification 21.6.2006 was issued that the Respondent shall be granted the scale of pay last drawn by him as an IAS officer minus the pension due to him, he accepted the appointment as State Vigilance Commissioner, although he was not obliged to do so. After assuming charge as the State Vigilance Commissioner, he made a representation that he should be paid the scale of pay of the State Chief Secretary. The State Government considered his request and constituted a Committee to examine his representation. However, the Committee did not recommend granting the pay scale equivalent to that of the Chief Secretary of the State. 11. We do not find any reason to agree with the recommendation of the Committee that has examined the matter. 12. We may note that the Committee set up by the State Government to examine the representation of the Respondent for a higher pay scale had favourably considered his representation by giving him better emoluments but was not in a position to grant him the same pay scale as the Chief Secretary. 13. The only submission made by learned Counsel for the Respondent for his client getting the same pay scale as the Chief Secretary of the State is that the earlier State Vigilance Commissioners were getting that pay scale. We do not think that merely because earlier State Vigilance Commissioners were getting the same pay scale as the Chief Secretary is good enough reason to give to the Respondent that pay scale. We do not think that merely because earlier State Vigilance Commissioners were getting the same pay scale as the Chief Secretary is good enough reason to give to the Respondent that pay scale. The situation earlier may or may not have been the same as of today, but in any case, the Respondent accepted the pay scale offered to him in 2006 without any protest. To make matters worse, even during the pendency of the writ petition, the Respondent requested to continue as the State Vigilance Commissioner for one year beyond the age of 65 years on the same pay scale. It appears to us that the Respondent was not so much concerned about the pay scale but was more concerned about remaining the State Vigilance Commissioner. He cannot now be allowed to turn around and demand a higher pay scale under these circumstances. 14. Learned Counsel for the Respondent sought to invoke the principle of equal pay for equal work. We are not able to appreciate how that principle can be invoked. There is only one State Vigilance Commissioner and it is not as if some other State Vigilance Commissioner is getting a higher or better pay scale than the Respondent. The principle of equal pay for equal work is not at all applicable. 15. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition filed by the Respondent. There is considerable merit in this appeal by the state. 16. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 17. No. costs. Appeal Allowed.